Author: Anna

Posted on

Week 4: Rhetoric Helpers

Academic Writing Class Journal

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Social Development IS the foundation of my rhetoric!
(below I bold keywords that argue my study topic: how do Becky and I connect)

“The ecology of human development involves the scientific study of the progressive mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this process is affected by relations between these settings, and by the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded. “(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 21)

“Learning and development are facilitated by the participation of the developing person in progressively more complex patterns of reciprocal activity with someone with whom that person has developed a strong and enduring emotional attachment, and when the balance of power gradually shifts in favor of the developing person.”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 60)

Here is literature support to satisfy Munby’s criteria for ethical research practices in my work:

“It seems to me that American researchers are constantly seeking to
explain how the child came to be what he is; we in the U.S.S.R. are
trying to discover not how the child came to be what he is, but how
he can become what he not yet is. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 40) The
principle becomes operationalized as a transforming experiment, formally defined as follows:
A transforming experiment involves the systematic alteration and restructuring of existing ecological systems in ways that challenge the forms of social organization, belief systems, and life styles prevailing in a particular culture or subculture.”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 41)

What an amazing insight into the differences between American and Soviet approaches to developmental psychology! I inherited the latter epistemology because I was born and raised in the USSR, and adopted the second because I spent years living (and studying psychology) in the States. No wonder I get so conflicted when I reflect on the influence of my upbringing in the person and researcher that I am today!
Here is that Munby’s “What’s the point? [of research]” bit in the discourse on vigor, ethics, and rhetoric again.

Posted on

Troubles II: On the Validity and Rigor of Research

Academic Writing Class Journal

So it happens, we read and discussed an article in our Philosophies class this week that gave me food for thought.

“What discussions of trustworthiness, credibility, reliability, validity seem to lack is the sense that research has a purpose. (not the “Statement of Purpose”) …I am interested in what we think research that we do is for: What is the point?”  (p.155)

“What I think we need to show to our research students is how the constructs we build in the educational research get transported into arenas of professional practice, into the settings in which they can be used. My experience is that this transportation is not always successful” (p. 156)

Ethics and Rigor.

Justifying research in terms of knowledge for its own sake is NOT ENOUGH:

All propositional knowledge is in the service of action, and action is clearly normative. (p. 156)

“Propositional knowledge is knowledge that some proposition is true. It thus contrasts with knowledge-how and perhaps with knowledge-who and knowledge-which.”  (Moser, 1987, p.91)

Research rationale partially satisfies the need for the normative premise.

“Quality” and “value” of educational research extend beyond “reliability” and “validity” because if research knowledge must be translatable into action (see the previous argument), then it will always be subject to the educator’s experience and theoretical viewpoints. Therefore, here steps in rigor.

The “Limitations” section explains how “practicality may compromise rigor” (p. 157).

“reliability is a rhetorical device rather than an epistemological one” (p. 158) (emphasis added).

Rigor and Rhetoric.

Sandelowski’s assertion (p. 2, 1993, as cited in Munby, 2003, p. 158):

“Rigor is less about adherence to the letter of rules and procedures than it is about fidelity to the spirit of qualitative work”

Munby’s comment:

Fidelity to the spirit of qualitative work is not enough. There must be rhetoric.

The language of statistics is but one form of rhetoric; however, it is a rhetoric that, for certain audiences and in certain circumstances can be more compelling and more functional than a case study, poem, or autoethnographical report
(Gergen and Gergen, 2000, p. 1033 as cited in Munby, 2003, p. 158)

However, rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and is, therefore, also subjective.

The rhetorical tradition realizes the limitations of philosophical argument as a vehicle for persuasion, especially when addressed to those who lack the training to follow the arcane, arid argumentation relish by that tradition. The rhetorical tradition recognizes a fundamental fact, namely, that people are creatures of flesh and blood, of passionate desire and aversion.
(Shrag, 1992, p. 272, as cited in Munby, 2003, p. 158)

Munby’s conclusion: RESEARCH IS ABOUT PERSUASION.

Big Question: How Does My Idea Measure Up in Terms of Rigor, Ethics, and Rhetoric?

  • Am I interested in understanding HOW Becky creates connections with other people, including me?
    Yes!
  • Am I interested in what ways her connections with others are different from neurotypical individuals’ connections with others?
    Yes!
  • Is it enough to pass it for rigorous research?
    No! (according to Munby)
    Unless, of course, I can persuade other academics that my work translates into action. Somehow.
References:
Paul K. Moser
Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition
Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jul., 1987), pp. 91-114  link
Munby, H. (2003). Guest Editorial: Educational Research as Disciplined Inquiry: Examining the Facets of Rigor in Our Work. SCIENCE EDUCATION, (2). 153. link
Posted on

Week 3: Troubles

Academic Writing Class Journal

Topic: How do Becky and I connect? DSM-V cites impairment in social reciprocity in persons with ASD, and I would like to investigate how social reciprocity appears in our relationship.

This week, I read about ASD and the way it impairs social communications.  I have come across some really neat articles, and even a personal blog of a 38-year old woman with ASD, ADHD, and OCD.

The more I read, the more I question the value of my research idea. I go back and forth from feeling so clever and so special for going on a journey to figure out ASD as a parent to feeling unsure and not so confident about my ability to make a contribution to social science. ANY parent can do this–reflect, make conclusions, and then call it research. I feel like I am just too full of myself.

No doubt, this slump demands attention to the reflexivity statement and internal issues. I thought I already dealt with several months ago. I feel that getting OTHER parents’ perspective is more valuable than sharing my own.  I grew up in a culture that disapproved of self-promotion.
Does my autoethnographic research feel like self-promotion?
…I think so…
…sometimes…
…often…
…usually.
I envision my parent’s looks of disapproval: all this hard work, all this money spent on graduate studies. What do I have to show for all of it? Memoirs? Worse yet, memoirs about parenting a child with odd behaviors. They do not believe that Becky has autism. She asked them point blank on Skype two months ago. They faltered and finally said they believe that every person has something odd about him or her–some people more, some people less. I am not sure how to explain this point of view. Maybe admitting she is autistic would force  them to concede that their genetic contribution to the advancement of the species was inadequate? I also think that in Russia autism is usually synonymous with intellectual disability, and they refuse to entertain the association? Maybe they just think that I failed her as a parent and encourage wrong behaviors? Maybe it is all three… or neither. Maybe I am still trying to win their approval? Overthinking things a bit? “No prophet is accepted in his hometown” anyway (Luke 4:24) Truly, this is personal…
***WOW, I think just found an explanation in Bronfenbrenner’s quote here! (5/28/2018, 12:33pm)

Nevertheless, today I found some validation to my epistemological dilemmas in an unusual source: a personal blog of a grown woman with ASD, ADHD, and OCD (mentioned above). She shared what it feels like to be her in a conversation with others. She explained that when people say she is “manic,” she is simply expressing her emotions while trying to process an interaction with a person (here is the post). She shared that she is trying very hard to understand and show interest in conversation partners, but it is difficult for a range of reasons.  Becky does that too, only we call it “spazzing.” There were several other points that I immediately shared with Becky and my husband because I thought they were insightful, and then I reflected on how much value I placed on some stranger’s thoughts. Perhaps, my thoughts and experiences are important to someone, too? The only issue I see is the delivery: I am not trying to write a blog. I am trying to make an academic contribution.
There must be rigor. There must be originality.

Posted on

Dialogic Interview

For this interview, I reached out to my daughter’s therapist. I chose her for this topic because she mentioned in our conversations before that she “hates teachers.” She was expressing her frustration about a certain incident, of course, but I sensed she formed some strong opinions about education, or at least, our local school district. Moreover, I knew it would be a good conversation because J is articulate and skilled in delivering points and yet gentle in argument.

We met in my living room, and I videotaped our interview via Zoom software for a chance to review and reflect on it at a later date. The interview lasted 1 hr 2 minutes, and could have gone further had I not stopped it out of respect for my participant’s time.

The topic of our interview was “Education” and more specifically, “Special  Education.” I started by quoting her earlier comment about teachers to elicit strong emotional response and to set the tone for our conversation.

I learned quite a bit about her dispositions on the topic. It seems to me, however, that her opinions are weighted heavily by her professional experiences of working with troubled teenagers and their families, as well as her personal childhood experiences and experiences as a single mother raising children in Hernando county. This was the only time I openly challenged her.

I also pointed out an incosistency in her logic when in the beginning she explained that many problems in education today are due to litigation-happy culture, but later she praised a local magnet school for modeling our culture through its micro-society program complete with banks, law enforcement, and even a judicial system and court. I brought attention to this point of view by recalling the former statement imediately after the latter and asked for a clarification.

I think there were some points in my interview with J where I could have collected more rich information  had I formed a more clear research question before hand. This is where I think I have done poorly, and it was probably because I felt overly confident about my topic. I wanted to know what curriculum ideology or educational philosophy she supports because this is something I have been pondering for a while as a parent and as an educator. So I wanted her to tell me what the purpose of education is in her opinion. Why do we put children in school? I left the question intentionally vague to provoke some questions, but it did, but not to the degree I expected. I think I should have been more assertive.
I knew I was going to have a semi-structured interview, but I should have done some reflexive writing prior to the interview to give my thoughts a better direction and to add conviction. Maybe I also should have read some literature about social workers’ or therapists’ dispositions in education context.

What went well
Well, I was not nervous. This was my first interview with a person who is not a family member or a very close friend. Last time I attempted this task as an undergraduate, I could barely put two words together.
I think my questions elicited some good responses, and I made some discoveries on the topic of social inequality and parental involvement in education. Did OK overall, but definitely need improvement.

Posted on

Photo sequence project

Had and idea to explore reading environments of a Kindergarten student (Danny). There are some interesting studies on the topic of early literacy, so I figured it would be neat to approach it from the Bronfenbrenner’s angle. I would like to take into the accout several factors: the social context (for example, maybe he is reading to impress his teacher or peers), lack of distractions or alternatives for other activities, plethora of reading choices make it interesting, a chance to spend wuality time together….

Wanted to give Dan my phone and ask him to take pictures of all places that he reads books.  I figured I could interview him about these photos later, ask him what spot is his favorite, if he remember what books he read in this particular spot, what books he likes to read, if anyone helps him make book choices, etc.

Now I am having second thoughts: (1) he is not too enthusiastic about the project, and (2) pics he snapped in his classroom today have hardly any detail. I think I must either change the topic (because the assignment is due in 4 days), or take photos myself. If I decide to do the second, I will need to develop a protocol for sure, Also need to figure out how to talk to Danny’s teacher and not scare her with my request to take photos of her classroom. I wish I had more time to figure it out…

Posted on

Participant Empowerment Through Photo-Elicitation Michael L. Boucher

Participant Empowerment Through Photo-Elicitation in Ethnographic Education Research by Michael L. Boucher (Editor)

ISBN: 9783319644127
Publication Date: 2017-10-23

Photo-voice, photo-elicitation, photo-essays, (p. 16) they are used to communicate when writing or putting things into words is not a good option due to participants’ age, skill, condition, etc.

Yet, it still takes skill to be able to reflect on an idea or a point, to express something. In other words, a person would have to be able to evaluate cognitions in order to make a decision about what to show in the frame. Is it not too abstract for someone with autism?

Posted on

Week 2: Pilot Interview

Academic Writing Class Journal

Last Friday I conducted a pilot interview with Becky and asked about how she thinks the two of us connect. I first checked to make sure she understands the difference between “getting along” with someone and feeling “close” to someone. She does. She was able to articulate it and even gave me some examples of how she has close friends and some acquaintances.

It was an impromptu conversation. I told her to meet me in my bedroom after we came home from school. I needed to talk to her about her school assignment (she was late submitting it), then somehow, sensing she was less irritable than normal, I asked if I could interview her for my “Interviewing Theory and Practice” class. Next thing I know, I was setting up Zoom to videotape our conversation. She agreed and even asked for some time to preen because (as she later explained) she thought I will show the recording to my peers in class. I told her several times this video is for our eyes only, but she recalled her experience presenting my autoethnography with her and was so fixated on it that my words did not sink in. She loved going to USF with me and wanted to look impressive just in case a person from USF will see this. It is completely normal, of course. Especially, as her age. So the two of sat with our backs against the headboard, staring at the laptop rested on my ankles. We talked looking at each other on the screen in front of us! This was odd, but it occurred to me that I might try doing this in an interview with another autistic person who may have a hard time looking at me face-to-face. Maybe I am on to something here?

First impressions after the interview.

So I have been thinking about how she and I connect. Specifically, I have been thinking about how our connections are not as deep and rich as connections between other mothers and daughters that I observed. During our interview, I discovered (much to my surprise) that

  1. She actually recalls many instances of our connections. What really intrigued me is that she had NO trouble identifying them and there were many such memories. She lost interest in our conversation after about 30 minutes, but I am convinced it was not because she ran out of stories to tell. She just got bored.
  2. I could not help it but think that she and I connect plenty… contrary to what I have been thinking lately. As she talked about her examples of connections, I recalled other examples just as effortlessly, so here is what I concluded: we have a lot of connections, and because there are so many, I take them for granted. What I do remember are the negative emotions from our DISconnects. When I disconnect with Becky, I blame autism. When I disconnect with a neurotypical person, I blame something else, like personality.
    This gives me an idea: maybe I should study how we disconnect instead? Kind of like Foucault’s absent present… maybe it is worth pursuing… I think if I study gaps instead of “hills,” I may be able to see what is inside of these failed connections, what powers drive the desire to connect? A tree trunk looks whole and wide and sturdy until it gets cut down. Then we see the rings and can figure out what is “inside” that tree.
  3. It struck me that almost every example Becky brought up was about us DOING something together and that activities usually end up benefitting her in some way. For example, she remembered us going shopping on several occasions. Specifically, this was this trip to Victoria’s Secret at Wiregrass that she brought up. I remembered it as connection because it was us “girls” doing “girl” things while our men went to the bookstore and did their own thing, I related to her as a woman because we were bra shopping together. I felt proud because she was now old enough for something expensive…I can not typically afford such a treat, but here we were, solvent and together.
    Yet, she was not able (or not willing) to articulate the nature of this particular connection, so maybe I should investigate these further.
  4. I know that getting this information out of her through talk will be difficult, Maybe I could try drawing? She teased me about being “dramatic” after she read my first autoethnography narratives. She is a teenager, of course, but this is a limitation I cannot ignore-she actually might not share with me details to avoid being seen as “dramatic.”  I explained to her that what she perceives as “dramatic” is intentional because good research demands details and reflection. She is starting to understand this, I think. We shall see. Still, I do not think we can pull off a duo ethnography unless I find a different way to elicit responses out of her.
Posted on

Activity 1.1: Exploring Phenomenological Interviews

For this activity I interveiwed my fourteen year old daughter. She has autism, but is considered high-functioning and absolutely verbal.

The main goal for the interview was to complete my assignment for the class, of course, but I am also interested in conducting a study about how autistic children connect with their parents. This study, though still in its early planning stage, is in its essence about the experience of feeling connected to another person, and therefore, is phenomenological in nature.  So I thought it would be good idea to do an interview as a pilot. However, to make this activity work for my class, I also planned to ask Becky about her feelings of frustration and joy as these two are most obvious emotions that I readily witness in our daily interactions.

The interview took place in my bedroom because this is where we had some heart-to-heart conversations in our past, and I figured it will be a good setting to induce a frank dialogue. I videotaped the interview via Zoom, and had a chance to view it later which turned out to be a great idea.

Overall, the  interview was not very succesful because I was not able to elicit as much information as I had hoped. I started with probing whether she understands what it means to feel “connected” to another person. She was able to articulate a good definition of a human connection, and appeared to understand the difference between “getting along” with someone and feeling “close” to someone. She recalled several memories of events where she experienced a connection with her brothers (I asked her about those as warm-ups” and to see whether she connects with them differently than with me). Then I asked her about instances when she felt a special connection to me. I asked her several questions about each event focusing on what it felt like. I asked her about physical surroundings, the context behind each moment, what emotions she experienced, why these moments were special and tried to get her to use her (excellent) sensory memory of smells, colors, lighting, sounds, and other details. Her answers, however, were mostly laconic.

Despite my efforts to keep her engaged, she grew tired of our conversation after about 30 minutes, and I know she kept on going out of politeness for another 10-12 minutes because I could tell by her body language that she had enough. She finally said “Mom, don;t get mad at me, but how much longer do we have to do this?” Frankly,  I was surprised that she lasted even this long because she typically does not stay focused on  something unless it was her idea. I do not think it was a mistake to recruit her for this interview, but this illustrates Roulston’s advice that the participant should be “able to talk about the particular lived experience under examination” (Roulston 2013, p. 11).

In my case, I knew she was ABLE to talk about her experiences because we talk about her experiences often, but I think the trick is that interviews are not just conversations, they are EXAMINATIONS, and that means they must be more rigorous than regular talks.

On the other hand, I did not want the interview to turn into an interrogation because she would definitely pick up on this and probably resist it. So I maintained a friendly conversational tone, and echoed her memories as much as I could especially when I remembered the event she was describing.

Perhaps, the biggest deficit in my interview was a rather late discovery that Becky’s language in reference to emotions was limited. For example, “happy” was just that, “happy.” I tried to get her to use other words, and she did it a few times, but not enough to say “I collected rich data.”

….Now that I think about it, she previously commented after reading my autoethnography narratives that I am “very dramatic.” So perhaps, she deliberately avoided appearing “dramatic” as well.

So, here are some of my take-away thoughts:

  1. Next time, I would not interview her for longer than 30 minutes; maybe plan for several shorter sessions instead.
  2. Maybe I could get her to draw what she is talking about and get more details out of her through the description. This is not something I would do for this class, but it seems like an idea worth trying in the future.
  3. I have to keep in mind that many teenagers have very strong ideas about what is “cool” and what is not, so getting them to open up and to be frank may become a serious limitation.
  4. I think I may have had a well-formed idea about what I will hear, so when I did not hear exactly what I expected, I thought my interview did not go well. This is probably my toughest and most valuable lesson-be wary of making hypotheses in qualitative inquiry!

This was  a great experience despite my feeling that I did not get as much out of her as I had hoped. Lessons learned, and I am eager for more!  I like what I am getting out of this class.